| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ON SELECT rule on a table without columns |
| Date: | 2019-02-08 18:02:54 |
| Message-ID: | 323.1549648974@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Attached is the patch that allows us to create view on a table without
> columns. I've also added some test-cases for it in create_view.sql.
> Please have a look and let me know your opinion.
Haven't read the patch, but a question seems in order here: should
we regard this as a back-patchable bug fix? The original example
shows that it's possible to create a zero-column view in existing
releases, which I believe would then lead to dump/reload failures.
So that seems to qualify as a bug not just a missing feature.
On the other hand, given the lack of field complaints, maybe it's
not worth the trouble to back-patch. I don't have a strong
opinion either way.
BTW, has anyone checked on what the matview code paths will do?
Or SELECT INTO?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-08 18:14:15 | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-02-08 17:59:42 | Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |